4 ms·

It seems OP hasn't quite thought this through... Apple does not demand 30% of out-of-app sales, just that out-of-app sales are not cheaper than in-app sales.

by groby_b 16y ago

It seems OP hasn't quite thought this through... Apple does not demand 30% of out-of-app sales, just that out-of-app sales are not cheaper than in-app sales. And as far as I read the release, SaaS is not concerned. Unless you're using Apples subscription mechanism, you're not offering a subscription in-app. So if you simply use a web API, that's not a subscription. Can Apple change that at any time? Yes. Closed platforms take power from developers and give it to the platform vendor - in exchange for (often) a bigger pie to get your slice from. Is the OP yet another pageview troll? Yes. Posting blatantly false information in the headline seems to indicate that.

portman 16y ago
"All we require is that, if a publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the app, the same (or better) offer be made inside the app" -- http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/02/15appstore.html http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/02/15appstore.html By this rule, all apps that offer subscriptions must additionally implement Apple's subscription mechanism. This is what the OP (and everyone else) is reacting to.
- groby_b 16y ago
  Not really - all apps that offer subscriptions must go through Apple's mechanism anyways. And subscription is (IMHO) well defined as referring to content, with types of content enumerated. So unless you make the case that SaaS is content, the post is baseless.
  - natrius 16y ago
    Baseless? Because Apple would never try to skim 30% of all the revenue that flows through their devices. That's crazy talk. /sarcasm The post is absolutely not baseless. Apple hasn't made their intentions clear regarding SaaS subscriptions, and it is likely that they want that money as well.
    - groby_b 16y ago
      Making a statement of fact ("Apple is taking 100% of mobile SaaS revenue") with no basis in reality is pretty much the definition of baseless. Unless and until Apple speaks on SaaS, this is a figment of the authors imagination. I'm not saying "it can't happen". I'm saying "not true as of right now" I'm surprised "making shit up" qualifies as news on HN these days.
      - natrius 16y ago
        The article begins with the premise, "It appears to me that the new "give Apple 30% of revenue" policy will apply to software subscriptions just as well as it appears to content." Assuming that sentence was always part of the article, it seems like you're just reacting to the headline. SaaS was an angle I hadn't thought of in regard to Apple's new policies, and their decisions there have important implications. I'm glad I saw this article.
- JamieEi 16y ago
  It would be bad enough if Apple was just demanding a 30% cut of all in-app purchases. Imagine if Visa or Mastercard tried to charge the same rates.
jonknee 16y ago
Apple has suggested that if you offer subscriptions (or purchases) outside of your app that you need to do it inside your app. At the same price. Hence the whole drama over Kindle--the purchases are done on the Amazon website but Apple has stated they want 30%.
- groby_b 16y ago
  Yes. How does 30% of content subscription translate into 100% of SaaS, again?
  - metageek 16y ago
    The original article pointed out that the mobile app doesn't represent all the value the customer gets from the service, then hypothesized that it represents about 30% of it; so 30% of the subscription revenue represents 100% of all the mobile service revenue. It might be a decent argument, if he hadn't pulled that hypothesized number out of his left nostril.
    - groby_b 16y ago
      That, and the fact that it's 30% of the mobile service revenue. If you sign up out-of-app, you don't pay 30%. He hypothesized (out of his right nostril, presumably ;) that all mobile users sign up via the mobile app, even though it only gives them 30% of their usage value. In other words, "I made up random number A. Then I made up random item B. Together, they prove <really outlandish claim that will drive visitors to my blog, but has no connection to reality whatsoever>." I hear AOL is looking for writers.
- raganwald 16y ago
  "but Apple has stated they want 30%...." of the revenue from those people who purchase content or subscriptions inside the application. If you purchase your content on Amazon's website, you can play it on an iOS device and Apple doesn't expect a cent.
  - 16y ago
allwein 16y ago
>And as far as I read the release, SaaS is not concerned. Unless you're using Apples subscription mechanism, you're not offering a subscription in-app. So if you simply use a web API, that's not a subscription. That's the point that you're missing. If you offer subscriptions or purchases out-of-app for use by the app, You are REQUIRED to offer subscriptions or purchases in-app as well for the same price and minus Apple's 30% cut. Section 11.13 of the approval guidelines read: "Apps can read or play approved content (magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video) that is sold outside of the app, for which Apple will not receive any portion of the revenues, provided that the same content is also offered in the app using IAP at the same price or less than it is offered outside the app. This applies to both purchased content and subscriptions." So the whole question comes down to whether SAAS counts as a subscription, content, or otherwise.
- groby_b 16y ago
  I never even entertained the idea somebody would consider SaaS "content". The thing also lists explicitly what they consider content. There's no "etc." Yes, you can probably bend it to mean anything, but as is, this really doesn't seem to include SaaS.
  - bradleyland 16y ago
    "this really doesn't seem to include SaaS" Today, it doesn't, but based on Apple's ever expanding scope, that's not a bet I'm willing to make. We're sticking to HTML5 web apps and making sure they run on Android browsers as well.
    - groby_b 16y ago
      That's probably a sound business strategy if you don't want to (or can't afford to) take the cut. I'm not saying "this could never happen". I'm saying "the OP is making stuff up to get page views"

by groby_b 16y ago

portman 16y ago

"All we require is that, if a publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the app, the same (or better) offer be made inside the app" -- http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/02/15appstore.html http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/02/15appstore.html By this rule, all apps that offer subscriptions must additionally implement Apple's subscription mechanism. This is what the OP (and everyone else) is reacting to.

groby_b 16y ago
Not really - all apps that offer subscriptions must go through Apple's mechanism anyways. And subscription is (IMHO) well defined as referring to content, with types of content enumerated. So unless you make the case that SaaS is content, the post is baseless.
- natrius 16y ago
  Baseless? Because Apple would never try to skim 30% of all the revenue that flows through their devices. That's crazy talk. /sarcasm The post is absolutely not baseless. Apple hasn't made their intentions clear regarding SaaS subscriptions, and it is likely that they want that money as well.
  - groby_b 16y ago
    Making a statement of fact ("Apple is taking 100% of mobile SaaS revenue") with no basis in reality is pretty much the definition of baseless. Unless and until Apple speaks on SaaS, this is a figment of the authors imagination. I'm not saying "it can't happen". I'm saying "not true as of right now" I'm surprised "making shit up" qualifies as news on HN these days.
    - natrius 16y ago
      The article begins with the premise, "It appears to me that the new "give Apple 30% of revenue" policy will apply to software subscriptions just as well as it appears to content." Assuming that sentence was always part of the article, it seems like you're just reacting to the headline. SaaS was an angle I hadn't thought of in regard to Apple's new policies, and their decisions there have important implications. I'm glad I saw this article.
JamieEi 16y ago
It would be bad enough if Apple was just demanding a 30% cut of all in-app purchases. Imagine if Visa or Mastercard tried to charge the same rates.

jonknee 16y ago

Apple has suggested that if you offer subscriptions (or purchases) outside of your app that you need to do it inside your app. At the same price. Hence the whole drama over Kindle--the purchases are done on the Amazon website but Apple has stated they want 30%.

groby_b 16y ago
Yes. How does 30% of content subscription translate into 100% of SaaS, again?
- metageek 16y ago
  The original article pointed out that the mobile app doesn't represent all the value the customer gets from the service, then hypothesized that it represents about 30% of it; so 30% of the subscription revenue represents 100% of all the mobile service revenue. It might be a decent argument, if he hadn't pulled that hypothesized number out of his left nostril.
  - groby_b 16y ago
    That, and the fact that it's 30% of the mobile service revenue. If you sign up out-of-app, you don't pay 30%. He hypothesized (out of his right nostril, presumably ;) that all mobile users sign up via the mobile app, even though it only gives them 30% of their usage value. In other words, "I made up random number A. Then I made up random item B. Together, they prove <really outlandish claim that will drive visitors to my blog, but has no connection to reality whatsoever>." I hear AOL is looking for writers.
raganwald 16y ago
"but Apple has stated they want 30%...." of the revenue from those people who purchase content or subscriptions inside the application. If you purchase your content on Amazon's website, you can play it on an iOS device and Apple doesn't expect a cent.
- 16y ago

allwein 16y ago

>And as far as I read the release, SaaS is not concerned. Unless you're using Apples subscription mechanism, you're not offering a subscription in-app. So if you simply use a web API, that's not a subscription. That's the point that you're missing. If you offer subscriptions or purchases out-of-app for use by the app, You are REQUIRED to offer subscriptions or purchases in-app as well for the same price and minus Apple's 30% cut. Section 11.13 of the approval guidelines read: "Apps can read or play approved content (magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video) that is sold outside of the app, for which Apple will not receive any portion of the revenues, provided that the same content is also offered in the app using IAP at the same price or less than it is offered outside the app. This applies to both purchased content and subscriptions." So the whole question comes down to whether SAAS counts as a subscription, content, or otherwise.

groby_b 16y ago
I never even entertained the idea somebody would consider SaaS "content". The thing also lists explicitly what they consider content. There's no "etc." Yes, you can probably bend it to mean anything, but as is, this really doesn't seem to include SaaS.
- bradleyland 16y ago
  "this really doesn't seem to include SaaS" Today, it doesn't, but based on Apple's ever expanding scope, that's not a bet I'm willing to make. We're sticking to HTML5 web apps and making sure they run on Android browsers as well.
  - groby_b 16y ago
    That's probably a sound business strategy if you don't want to (or can't afford to) take the cut. I'm not saying "this could never happen". I'm saying "the OP is making stuff up to get page views"